Was I slandered?

[capnblinski]

Pennsylvania -
I was given an eviction notice by my landlord's attorney in which he stated I have been 1.) "Incessantly harassing and lying" about his client over the fact of the landlord entering my property when I am not home, along with a few other overbearing problems at my home. The letter states that I have no right to make any requests or demands of this nature. I feel this to be unjust and consider this slander on part of the lawyer, as well as the landlord.

 

[quincy]

Pennsylvania -
I was given an eviction notice by my landlord's attorney in which he stated I have been 1.) "Incessantly harassing and lying" about his client over the fact of the landlord entering my property when I am not home, along with a few other overbearing problems at my home. The letter states that I have no right to make any requests or demands of this nature. I feel this to be unjust and consider this slander on part of the lawyer, as well as the landlord.

What the attorney said does not appear to be slanderous, especially if he said it only to you and the attorney heard it from his client. The attorney/client communication would be privileged and the attorney comment to you was not a third party communication. Defamation requires a non-privileged publication to a third party.

Beyond that, your post is a little unclear.

I am not sure what exactly you have been saying about the landlord, where you have made your comments about the landlord, or what requests/demands you have been making of the landlord that would lead to the attorney's comment. Although I understand you are being evicted, I am not clear on what your eviction is based. What terms of your lease did you violate?

 

[latigo]

Pennsylvania -
I was given an eviction notice by my landlord's attorney in which he stated I have been 1.) "Incessantly harassing and lying" about his client over the fact of the landlord entering my property when I am not home, along with a few other overbearing problems at my home. The letter states that I have no right to make any requests or demands of this nature. I feel this to be unjust and consider this slander on part of the lawyer, as well as the landlord.

"1.)" . . . . . (duh). (It seems one of you experienced a loss for words.)

Whatever, but let's suppose you were to write the landlord * stating "you are a lying, money loving, extorting, intruding, nosy, law breaking scoundrel."

Would you have likewise exposed yourself to being sued for defamation as you assume has the lawyer?

The answer to both the hypothetical and your question is NO! . . . . Why?

Because in each instance the invectives (true or false) were exclusively communicated to the individual meant to be maligned. Taking it a step farther - the tort action for defamation is grounded on the presumption that the reputation of the complaining individual has been thus sullied. And reputation has to do with how one is regarded by others.

_______________


[SUP] [*] I advisedly chose the landlord as everyone knows lawyers are all of the above.[/SUP]

 

[quincy]

"1.)" . . . . . (duh). (It seems one of you experienced a loss for words.)

Whatever, but let's suppose you were to write the landlord * stating "you are a lying, money loving, extorting, intruding, nosy, law breaking scoundrel."

Would you have likewise exposed yourself to being sued for defamation as you assume has the lawyer?

The answer to both the hypothetical and your question is NO! . . . . Why?

Because in each instance the invectives (true or false) were exclusively communicated to the individual meant to be maligned. Taking it a step farther - the tort action for defamation is grounded on the presumption that the reputation of the complaining individual has been thus sullied. And reputation has to do with how one is regarded by others.

_______________


[SUP] [*] I advisedly chose the landlord as everyone knows lawyers are all of the above.[/SUP]

I am not sure that "lying, money loving, extorting, intruding, nosy, law breaking scoundrel" would be found defamatory. It could be judged hyperbole (or, as you note if said of a lawyer, true). But your point was nicely made.

I need to clarify my earlier post because I read the original post as saying that the attorney spoke to capnblinski and I see now that the words were written in the eviction notice (which seems odd). If what was communicated was written instead of spoken, and it was in fact defamatory, it would not be considered "slander" but "libel." Slander is the oral form of defamation and libel is the written form and I usually make clear this distinction, but didn't.

The problem with committing to writing anything possibly defamatory is that others might have access to what was written - and the writing provides proof of the defamation.

 

[capnblinski]

What the attorney said does not appear to be slanderous, especially if he said it only to you and the attorney heard it from his client. The attorney/client communication would be privileged and the attorney comment to you was not a third party communication. Defamation requires a non-privileged publication to a third party.

Beyond that, your post is a little unclear.

I am not sure what exactly you have been saying about the landlord, where you have made your comments about the landlord, or what requests/demands you have been making of the landlord that would lead to the attorney's comment. Although I understand you are being evicted, I am not clear on what your eviction is based. What terms of your lease did you violate?

Thanks for your reply. This all started in August 2014 (I moved in here September 2007) when I fell behind in the rent due to a job loss. I was given an eviction notice, but was able to work out an arrangement (along with a new job) to stay, and pay towards the back amount. In December of 2014 I wrote the landlord (who by the way lives next door in the duplex here) a letter stating that: "the excessive front door slamming cease - - that a junk automobile be removed from my side of the house - - and that I have evidence of the home being entered without my leave i.e. doors and windows opened that I know had been shut and secured by me".

The eviction is being based on the amount of back money I owe that has not yet been re-payed in full plus the "harassment" I supposedly gave the landlord by requesting the above problems be taken care of.

Everything was copacetic here until I wrote that letter last December. The statements are in the March eviction letter to me. . Not sure if the lawyer's statements could be considered slander, libel or defamation - - but this just doesn't 'sit right', to my way of thinking.

 

[capnblinski]

"1.)" . . . . . (duh). (It seems one of you experienced a loss for words.)

Whatever, but let's suppose you were to write the landlord * stating "you are a lying, money loving, extorting, intruding, nosy, law breaking scoundrel."

Would you have likewise exposed yourself to being sued for defamation as you assume has the lawyer?

The answer to both the hypothetical and your question is NO! . . . . Why?

Because in each instance the invectives (true or false) were exclusively communicated to the individual meant to be maligned. Taking it a step farther - the tort action for defamation is grounded on the presumption that the reputation of the complaining individual has been thus sullied. And reputation has to do with how one is regarded by others.

_______________


[SUP] [*] I advisedly chose the landlord as everyone knows lawyers are all of the above.[/SUP]

I was a bit upset when I first posted - -hence the number 1.) with no 2.) following.

 

[quincy]

Thanks for your reply. This all started in August 2014 (I moved in here September 2007) when I fell behind in the rent due to a job loss. I was given an eviction notice, but was able to work out an arrangement (along with a new job) to stay, and pay towards the back amount. In December of 2014 I wrote the landlord (who by the way lives next door in the duplex here) a letter stating that: "the excessive front door slamming cease - - that a junk automobile be removed from my side of the house - - and that I have evidence of the home being entered without my leave i.e. doors and windows opened that I know had been shut and secured by me".

The eviction is being based on the amount of back money I owe that has not yet been re-payed in full plus the "harassment" I supposedly gave the landlord by requesting the above problems be taken care of.

Everything was copacetic here until I wrote that letter last December. The statements are in the March eviction letter to me. . Not sure if the lawyer's statements could be considered slander, libel or defamation - - but this just doesn't 'sit right', to my way of thinking.

From what you have posted, I see no defamation in what the attorney wrote. The elements for a defamation suit cannot be met - no third party non-privileged negligent communication of false statements that result in reputational injury for which damages can be awarded.

If you did not/have not met the terms of the agreement you made with your landlord, to make up the back rent that you owed, the landlord had a legitimate reason for the eviction notice. He seems additionally unhappy with your complaints about how he lives on his own property.

It appears you need to find a new place to live. Good luck in your search for a new residence.

 

[capnblinski]

From what you have posted, I see no defamation in what the attorney wrote. The elements for a defamation suit cannot be met - no third party non-privileged negligent communication of false statements that result in reputational injury for which damages can be awarded.

If you did not/have not met the terms of the agreement you made with your landlord, to make up the back rent that you owed, the landlord had a legitimate reason for the eviction notice. He seems additionally unhappy with your complaints about how he lives on his own property.

It appears you need to find a new place to live. Good luck in your search for a new residence.

As far as making up the back rent - I was doing just that over the past months - and everything was peachy until I complained.

Perhaps the landlord is unhappy with my complaints; however I am certainly unhappy with the banging and slamming (that has since stopped) -- the junk automobile that's ten feet off my back porch (that was at least covered with a tarp) -- but most especially with the entering of 'my' side of the home when I'm not there. The landlord has told the lawyer she 'lost the key' and has no way of entering the home! If that was the case the locks should have been promptly changed.

So I was already in a not-so-good position and decided to rock the boat. Once again, as for so many others, the landlord wins.. except perhaps for the karma aspect.

Thanks for your time and good wishes.

 

[quincy]

As far as making up the back rent - I was doing just that over the past months - and everything was peachy until I complained.

Perhaps the landlord is unhappy with my complaints; however I am certainly unhappy with the banging and slamming (that has since stopped) -- the junk automobile that's ten feet off my back porch (that was at least covered with a tarp) -- but most especially with the entering of 'my' side of the home when I'm not there. The landlord has told the lawyer she 'lost the key' and has no way of entering the home! If that was the case the locks should have been promptly changed.

So I was already in a not-so-good position and decided to rock the boat. Once again, as for so many others, the landlord wins.. except perhaps for the karma aspect.

Thanks for your time and good wishes.

If you were meeting the payment arrangement you made with the landlord, to make up the past due amounts by including additional amounts with your regular rent payments, I am not sure the landlord actually has grounds for an eviction. The landlord's claims of your harassment and lies, even if true, should not be a violation of your lease agreement.

That said, if the past due payment agreement was not in writing, you could have a difficult time proving such an agreement existed. I am not at all sure it would be worth your time and effort to fight an eviction. The problems you are having with your landlord are likely to increase over time, so you are probably better off finding a rental with a better landlord - but I suggest you start looking for a new place to live soon, before eviction proceedings start and there is a record of the eviction for future landlords to see.

Or, if you want to stay where you are, you could have a landlord/tenant lawyer in your area review the facts to see where you stand in terms of an eviction.

Whatever you decide to do (and an attorney's review might not be a bad idea), I wish you good luck, capnblinski.

 

[capnblinski]

If you were meeting the payment arrangement you made with the landlord, to make up the past due amounts by including additional amounts with your regular rent payments, I am not sure the landlord actually has grounds for an eviction. The landlord's claims of your harassment and lies, even if true, should not be a violation of your lease agreement.

That said, if the past due payment agreement was not in writing, you could have a difficult time proving such an agreement existed. I am not at all sure it would be worth your time and effort to fight an eviction. The problems you are having with your landlord are likely to increase over time, so you are probably better off finding a rental with a better landlord - but I suggest you start looking for a new place to live soon, before eviction proceedings start and there is a record of the eviction for future landlords to see.

Or, if you want to stay where you are, you could have a landlord/tenant lawyer in your area review the facts to see where you stand in terms of an eviction.

Whatever you decide to do (and an attorney's review might not be a bad idea), I wish you good luck, capnblinski.

Back at ya - I already have some of my belongings removed and am fervently looking for a better place. I will post with the resolution.

 

[quincy]

Back at ya - I already have some of my belongings removed and am fervently looking for a better place. I will post with the resolution.

I think a "better" place may not be too hard to find or, at least, it shouldn't be too hard to find a better landlord.

I know that there are bad landlords - we hear about them, and from them, a lot on this forum - but I like to think they represent only a small percentage of the landlords out there.

Most experienced landlords will know the laws that govern them and will respect the rights of the tenants who occupy their rental units. Here's hoping you find one of the those.

Again, good luck, and, yes, please do post back with what happens.

 

[latigo]

I am not sure that "lying, money loving, extorting, intruding, nosy, law breaking scoundrel" would be found defamatory. It could be judged hyperbole (or, as you note if said of a lawyer, true). But your point was nicely made.

I need to clarify my earlier post because I read the original post as saying that the attorney spoke to capnblinski and I see now that the words were written in the eviction notice (which seems odd). If what was communicated was written instead of spoken, and it was in fact defamatory, it would not be considered "slander" but "libel." Slander is the oral form of defamation and libel is the written form and I usually make clear this distinction, but didn't.

The problem with committing to writing anything possibly defamatory is that others might have access to what was written - and the writing provides proof of the defamation.

My error as I carelessly misunderstood the libelous statements as being contained in a letter from the lawyer rather than his undignified act of including the accusations in drafting and serving the Notice to Quit.

But regarding your "others might have access" I would appreciate your thoughts on its legal consequences assuming such a publication could not be shown as intended by nor reasonably anticipated by or attributed to the author.

 

[quincy]

My error as I carelessly misunderstood the libelous statements as being contained in a letter from the lawyer rather than his undignified act of including the accusations in drafting and serving the Notice to Quit.

But regarding your "others might have access" I would appreciate your thoughts on its legal consequences assuming such a publication could not be shown as intended by nor reasonably anticipated by or attributed to the author.

Unintentional or inadvertent publication of defamatory statements can still be published defamation and can still harm a reputation, and repeating the defamatory statements of others can still be defamation and can still harm a reputation.

If a letter-sender addresses a letter to a single individual with a reasonable expectation that only that particular individual will read the letter, but the letter is read by others, the sender can use as a partial defense to defamation that he had no intention of defaming the recipient by making the letter available to a third party. This will not necessarily excuse what was written or the possible reputational harm the unintended publication of the defamatory statements caused, but it could work to mitigate damages that might be awarded in the event the letter gives rise to a lawsuit and the lawsuit for the plaintiff is successful. Whether there was publication to a third party by the defendant could be a question argued by the parties.

If a letter-sender knows in advance, or should know in advance, that the letter addressed to a single individual will be read by others (for example, by an office assistant charged with opening the mail), this partial defense is less likely to work. Whether there was publication to a third party by the defendant could be a question argued by the parties.

My concern with the notice of eviction is that some eviction notices are posted to the doors of the residents being evicted, where they can be seen by others. Depending on facts not known here, the attorney's comments added to the notice (if defamatory and if in fact added to the notice and visible to those passing by) could potentially support a suit. Unlikely, perhaps, but I suppose it is not entirely outside the realm of possibilities.

 

[latigo]

Unintentional or inadvertent publication of defamatory statements can still be published defamation and can still harm a reputation, and repeating the defamatory statements of others can still be defamation and can still harm a reputation.

If a letter-sender addresses a letter to a single individual with a reasonable expectation that only that particular individual will read the letter, but the letter is read by others, the sender can use as a partial defense to defamation that he had no intention of defaming the recipient by making the letter available to a third party. This will not necessarily excuse what was written or the possible reputational harm the unintended publication of the defamatory statements caused, but it could work to mitigate damages that might be awarded in the event the letter gives rise to a lawsuit and the lawsuit for the plaintiff is successful. Whether there was publication to a third party by the defendant could be a question argued by the parties.

If a letter-sender knows in advance, or should know in advance, that the letter addressed to a single individual will be read by others (for example, by an office assistant charged with opening the mail), this partial defense is less likely to work. Whether there was publication to a third party by the defendant could be a question argued by the parties.

My concern with the notice of eviction is that some eviction notices are posted to the doors of the residents being evicted, where they can be seen by others. Depending on facts not known here, the attorney's comments added to the notice (if defamatory and if in fact added to the notice and visible to those passing by) could potentially support a suit. Unlikely, perhaps, but I suppose it is not entirely outside the realm of possibilities.

Thanks. Your keen observations are persuasive. As you note - at least as I understand it - the author should be conscious of and thus held accountable for the likelihood that the defamatory material will reach other eyes. I don't have any authority at hand that would back it up, but it seems logical.

Nevertheless, I wouldn't feel comfortable in prosecuting a tort action where the writing was not intended for general publication.

Thanks again, Q. Reading your stuff always gives pleasure.

 

[quincy]

... Nevertheless, I wouldn't feel comfortable in prosecuting a tort action where the writing was not intended for general publication. ...

Certainly if a letter-sender sends a letter containing false statements solely to the individual about whom the false statements were made, the recipient of the letter will have more of a challenge in a defamation suit trying to claim third-party publication if others happen to read the personal correspondence - and when aspects of a suit are challenging, the costs to pursue the action tend to increase substantially. But (theoretically at any rate), there are many situations where such a claim could be successful (e.g., knowledge that all correspondence is screened by another, the recipient is illiterate or blind, the letter needs translation, foreseeable compelled self-publication ...).

Pennsylvania has not ruled out (entirely) the idea of compelled self-publication as third-party publication for which the originator of defamatory statements could be held liable, although many states have. You can read Part B, State Defamation Claims, in the case Susan Leslie Frank v. Allstate Insurance Company, et al (https://www.paed.uscourts.gov/documents/opinions/14D0571P.pdf) where the Court quotes from Yetter v. Ward Trucking Corp., 585 A.2d 1022 (Pa. Super. 1991): "We express no view as to whether under a different set of circumstances, compelled self-publication of the defamatory material by the defamed person, rather than by the defendant to a third-party, will suffice."

When the letter-sender makes defamatory statements in a letter, addressed specifically to the person defamed, and the letter-sender has reason to believe the recipient will have to disclose its defamatory contents to a third person (for example, to a prospective employer on stated reasons by former employer for termination), then the letter-sender could be found responsible for the compelled third-party publication.

Here are a few cases to read, if you are so inclined , on third-party publication when the third-party came upon the defamatory statements from someone other than the originator:

Barnes v. Clayton House Motel, 435 S.W. 2d616 (Tex 1968):
http://www.leagle.com/decision/19681051435SW2d616_1959.xml/BARNES v. CLAYTON HOUSE MOTEL

"If one sends a libelous statement through the mails, addressed to the person defamed, with the expectation or intention that it will be read by another person as a matter of course, and such other person so reads it, there is publication, but where the sender is 'not reasonably chargeable with knowledge that a third person might 'intercept' and read the libelous matter before it reached the person allegedly defamed,' there is no publication."

[/Churchey v. Adolph Coors Co., 759 P.2d 1336 (Colo. 1988) (see Part B, Publication):
http://www.leagle.com/decision/19882095759P2d1336_12027.xml/CHURCHEY v. ADOLPH COORS CO.

"If a reasonable person would recognize that an act creates an unreasonable risk that the defamatory matter will be communicated to a third party, the conduct becomes a negligent communication. A negligent communication amounts to a publication just as effectively as an intentional communication."

K-Mart Corporation v. Washington, 866 P.2d 274 (Nev. 1993): http://www.leagle.com/decision/19931140866P2d274_11135.xml/K-MART CORPORATION v. WASHINGTON

"Words or conduct or the combination of words or conduct can communicate defamation."